Come, Now, Friend Cao ...
I'm disappointed. Not by Anh "Joseph" Cao's vote against the stimulus package, per se. I can abide that vote as I think that there are principled reasons for not voting for the measure. Rather, I am disappointed in the explanation Cao gave in his letter to the Editor in today's Times-Picayune (can't find it online yet) regarding his vote. In short, even though I think Cao's letter was earnest and sincere, it didn't really make a case for his "no" vote on the basis of those principled reasons. I am afraid to say that his letter was not convincing at all, and, in fact, underscored his inexperience and his impotence as a legislator.
I'll get more into this when I can actually reference his letter directly. (I don't have the print copy of the TP in front of me, and I can't find the letter online). But suffice it for now to say that Cao's principle argument for not supporting the legislation was that it didn't serve his district in terms of wealth and job creation. The implication is that had it done so, his vote would have been different. But this argument reveals a couple of things to us about Cao, none of which reflects positively on him.
First, it simply drives the point home that, if there was nothing in the bill to benefit Cao's district, then it is also true that Cao either did nothing or could do nothing to change this. It points to Cao as a passive "taker" of the stimulus as opposed to an active "shaper" of the stimulus. And it defies logic that Cao, had he really wanted to, could have used his potential role as the lone GOP Congressperson to support the measure, to extract something for his district that he would have been proud of. In short, it points to Cao's political impotence and to his political naivete. Not good. We in Louisiana's 2nd Congressional District should expect more from Cao. And Cao, himself, should actually be presenting himself as more proactive on behalf of his district instead of coming across as a rather helpless and ineffective bystander in looking out for his district.
Second, Cao's argument underscores a real lack of vision about what is good for his district. In fact, Cao's argument that there weren't specific goodies in the bill that targeted his district directly seems to indicate that Cao, himself, would consider supporting a stimulus only to the extent that it serves the narrow interest of his district without reference to what a stimulus might do for the overall national economy that is also critical for the wealth and job creation of his district. Cao apparently fails to see how a responsible stimulus that really puts the US on a much more solid economic footing overall is actually good for Louisiana's 2nd Congressional District, even if that stimulus doesn't have specific earmarks or pork projects for his district. To put it another way, if Cao had considered how the stimulus might benefit state budgets or regional development efforts, he might have come to a different conclusion about the benefits of such a stimulus on the economic health and welfare of his own district.
UPDATE: Tuesday, February 17, 2009: 9:00PM - Here's Cao's letter. Read it for yourself.
UPDATE THE SECOND - Cao's letter, as is typical for most GOP stimulus package opponents, laments the apparent lack of fairness and transparency in what is supposedly a back-room deal that is foisted upon Congress without adequate time to study and debate the measure. Cao writes:
The passage of the stimulus bill was neither fair nor transparent. The entire process was characterized by traditional Washington back-room dealing and was intended to ram through a trillion-dollar spending frenzy with as little debate and scrutiny as possible.To read this, one would get the impression that Cao and others simply had no time to read and ponder the stimulus plan's fine print. But what rankles any honest observer is that this complaint is also accompanied by the charge that the stimulus is "loaded with big government spending and dubious initiatives that will do little to help the average American. The costs of the stimulus bill far outweigh the benefits." How, if this stimulus was rammed down Cao's throat with little to no debate and scrutiny, is Cao so certain that the bill is loaded with big government spending and dubious initiatives? It seems to me that Cao would have had to study the bill fairly thoroughly in order to know this. If it is true that Cao didn't have time to study the bill's fine print, then his claim to know what the bill is "loaded" with is really disingenuous. If it is true that Cao didn't have time to scrutinize the bill, how would he really be able to know that the benefits aren't worth the costs? It seems to me that Cao is simply parroting standard GOP talking points. Disappointing. Again, I'm very willing to entertain a rationale for opposing the stimulus on the basis of specific reference to fiscally irresponsible elements of the bill; but Cao doesn't give any specific references that he himself discovered, all the while claiming that they exist and that he is aware enough of them to find fault with the bill and to vote against it.
Posts
5 comments:
Perhaps it would be fair to say that any Republican would flinch at a trillion dollar government spending program whose goal is to jumpstart the economy, even if they didn't know every detail.
I don't need to read the manual on a billion dollar coffee maker to know it is way overpriced.
Eric - My issue with Cao here is not that he "flinched" (and I think it would also be fair to say that anyone, whether Democrat or Republican, would flinch at such a massive, expensive program). My problem is that he focuses his opposition not on the size and expense of the thing, but on the fact that it didn't really do much for his district. The assumption is that if it did more for his district, he likely wouldn't have flinched.
And let us not forget that part of the "overpricing" here is also due to massive tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts. Conservatives always tend to overlook the fact that this stimulus is a combination of the worst of Republican irresponsible tax-cuttery with the worst of Democratic irresponsible spending. I wish there would be more about balanced-budgetry in these debates; and I'm hopeful that Obama's upcoming fiscal responsibility initiative is serious about this fact. If Obama can come up with a plan to get that defecit trajectory on the downward slope, as he has indicated he hopes to do, I'm not going to complain so much about the cost of the stimulus.
"Conservatives always tend to overlook the fact that this stimulus is a combination of the worst of Republican irresponsible tax-cuttery with the worst of Democratic irresponsible spending."
Actually, this bill isn't very reflective of Republican tax-cuttery at all, which usually involves cutting taxes on those who pay the most, which usually has the added benefit of increasing government revenues and stimulating the economy. It is important to note this now, because later when people are claiming that the stimulus plan proved that tax cuts wreck government revenues, they will need to be corrected: targeted tax cuts can increase government revenues and stimulate the economy. Tax cuts to people who don't pay a lot in taxes to begin with tend not to do as much.
Republicans nearly always fail to make this argument because they don't want to be accused of being in the tank for the wealthy, but the idea is part and parcel of their tax policy and has been for decades.
This new form of tax-cuttery is a Democratic invention, and they should take ownership of it.
But yeah, I agree with you on the balanced budget thing. Of course, then Obama and the Democrats would have to face reality, and that wouldn't be much fun for them.
Eric - I'm a bit curious as to your "progressive" tax-cuttery. It's like the reverse of "progressive" taxation. Seems like you want "targeted" tax cuts for the wealthy and then the rest of us to have to bear the tax burden. Is the pain to my pocketbook caused by taxes any less important to my bottom line and my own ability to generate income and produce new jobs as it is to the top 5% of income earners? What ever happened to the principle of taxation fairness and equality that conservatives harp on called the "flat tax" which is, indeed, a staple of conservative tax-cuttery. This idea of a "progressive" tax cutting strategy is about as pernicious to job creation and income generation as you probably think progressive taxation is. Think of it like this, give the small business owner, who is the major engine of job creation and productivity in this country, $2000 more bucks in his pocket and he'll do a much better job at stretching that into more jobs and productivity. I agree that "targeted" tax cuts can be helpful, but where you and I disagree is on the "target" itself. In that sense, I think tax cuts for the vast majority of middle class entrepreneurs and small businesses represent a much more productive target for tax cut policy than a "progressive" tax cut policy that rewards fat cat CEOs who need gazillion dollar bailouts simply because they're rich.
"Seems like you want "targeted" tax cuts for the wealthy and then the rest of us to have to bear the tax burden."
Seeing as how the wealthy pony up the vast majority of tax dollars in this country, yes, I think they deserve a break first if one is going to be given out. I'm fine with plans that give everyone a tax cut as well (at least, everyone who pays taxes), but to completely exclude the wealthy from cuts, as Obama has done (with the intention of raising their taxes in the near future), while giving tax "rebates" to people who pay no taxes at all.... well that is certainly not a plan I've ever heard Republicans pitching. It's a different philosophy than the one the Republicans have, and Obama ran on it, and the Democrats should take ownership of it instead of claiming they are trying to give Republicans what they want.
"What ever happened to the principle of taxation fairness and equality that conservatives harp on called the "flat tax" which is, indeed, a staple of conservative tax-cuttery. "
There are still a lot of conservatives who support it, although many are moving towards support for a 'fair tax' VAT type scenario (an idea I have been skeptical of but am starting to come around to). I would argue that flat taxes are ultimately still progressive in nature... the more you make the more you pay.
You can call it "tax cuts for the rich" or "progressive tax cuts" or whatever you want, but in today's world, anytime you give tax cuts to the wealthy, you are distributing the tax burden more evenly across the population, which is a fair deal by my reckoning. In addition, you are stimulating growth, which is a nice added benefit (although I'd admittedly support a more evenly shared tax burden even if it meant it would hurt the economy... I'm a proponent of justice before I'm a proponent of economic abundance).
"Think of it like this, give the small business owner, who is the major engine of job creation and productivity in this country, $2000 more bucks in his pocket and he'll do a much better job at stretching that into more jobs and productivity."
I think you have to paint 'small business owner' with a finer brush in order for this to be effective. Give $2,000 to a guy running a business out of his garage, with two employees, and it is likely to go in his savings account or to pay down debt. It certainly isn't going to help him create new jobs, though he might buy some new equipment with it. The amount simply isn't big enough to encourage him to do anything big with it.
Give $50,000 in tax cuts to a guy who runs a small chain of restaraunts and employees 150 people, and that might be enough to convince him he can afford to open up a new store, or to pay a legal team to help him set up a franchise system. The amount is big enough to do big things with. But now you are likely dealing with a person who has an income that puts him well out of the middle class.
In my book, that's not corporate welfare, as long as these people are still paying at least as much in taxes as the middle class do.
Ultimately, I think if you want to do the kinds of things Obama wants to do with our government, middle class Americans should be willing to fork over at least half, and maybe 3/4 their income to the federal government, becasue that's what it is going to cost (I'm not even sure middle class America could pay for these things if they gave the government 90% of their money). Demanding that it be done with other people's money is no different than the mentality a mugger has when they take your wallet.
Post a Comment